(Item 4.2) 1

4.2 – SE/16/03813/FUL Revised expiry date 10 April 2017

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing agricultural buildings, erection of 17 dwellings, including 7 affordable units, with change of use and conversion of existing cart shed and Boulton & Paul agricultural building to office accommodation with associated parking, landscaping scheme and alterations to existing vehicular access

LOCATION: Foxbury Farm, Stone Street, Seal, Kent TN15 0LW

WARD(S): Seal & Weald

ITEM FOR DECISION

This application is reported to the Development Control Committee at the request of Councillor Hogarth who is in support of the application.

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be Refused for the following reasons:-

1 The land lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt where strict policies of restraint apply. The proposal would be inappropriate development harmful in principle to the Green Belt. The Council does not consider that the material considerations presented in this case that form the case for very special circumstances are sufficient to justify overriding policies L01 and L08 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2 The proposed development, because of the residential nature of the proposal, its design and the density of the scheme would result in a development that was out of character with the rural area in which it is located and of harm to the appearance and character of its surroundings. This conflicts with policy SP1 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan.

3 The proposal would create an undesirable form of development. It would harm the residential amenities enjoyed by the existing and future occupants of the proposed development because of an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy. This conflicts with policy EN2 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan.

4 Without the secure provision of affordable housing through a completed Section 106 obligation, the proposal would be contrary to policy SP3 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy.

Informatives

1) The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that the CIL IS PAYABLE. Should this decision be appealed and the appeal is allowed full details will be set out in the CIL Liability Notice which will be issued as soon as possible after the appeal decision is issued. Further information can be

(Item 4.2) 2

found here:

http://www.sevenoaks.gov.uk/services/housing/planning/planning-applications/community-infrastructure-levy-cil

Note to applicant

In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF Sevenoaks District Council (SDC) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals. SDC works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner, by;

• Offering a duty officer service to provide initial planning advice,

• Providing a pre-application advice service,

• When appropriate, updating applicants/agents of any small scale issues that may arise in the processing of their application,

• Where possible and appropriate suggesting solutions to secure a successful outcome,

• Allowing applicants to keep up to date with their application and viewing all consultees comments on line (www.sevenoaks.gov.uk/environment/planning/planning_services_online/654.asp),

• By providing a regular forum for planning agents,

• Working in line with the NPPF to encourage developments that improve the improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area,

• Providing easy on line access to planning policies and guidance, and

• Encouraging them to seek professional advice whenever appropriate.

In this instance the applicant/agent:

1) Working in line with the NPPF, the application was refused as the proposal failed to improve the economic, social or environmental conditions of the area.

Description of proposal

1 The application seeks the approval of the demolition of the majority of the existing agricultural buildings on the site and the erection of 17 new dwellings, the conversion of one agricultural building to an office use and the re-use of another for garaging, as well as parking, landscaping and alterations to the vehicular access.

2 The proposed dwellings would be spread across the site, including a terrace of eight units to the front of the site, seven of which are earmarked as affordable units, and groupings of units to the rear of the site.

3 The barn to be converted to an office use is located to the front of the site, adjacent to the access. Some internal and external alterations are proposed to be made, the main one being the insertion of large glazed panels to the front opening of the building.

(Item 4.2) 3

4 The second building to be converted is situated on the western boundary of the site adjacent to the junction with Church Road. It is currently an open sided building and this open frontage would be retained.

5 Parking spaces provided for the development would be spread across the site for the new residential units and the new office use. Some would be provided within new garage buildings. Alterations to the vehicular access would mean a widening of the existing access.

Description of site

6 The application site comprises a large farm complex, which is made up of a number of large agricultural buildings mainly used for storage purposes. The site is located on the north side of the main lane through the centre of Stone Street adjacent to the junction with Church Road. The levels of the site rise slightly from the lane and the site is generally bounded by mature tree lines to the east and west and a wooded area to the north.

Constraints

7 The site falls within the Metropolitan Green Belt, the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and partially within an Area of Archaeological Potential. The Oast house building, directly adjacent to the application site is grade II listed and a number of the agricultural buildings on site are curtilage listed.

Policies

ADMP

8 Policies – SC1, EN1, EN2, EN4, EN5, GB5, GB9, T2 and T3

Sevenoaks Core Strategy

9 Policies – LO1, LO8, SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4, SP5, SP7 and SP11

Other

10 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

11 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

12 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

13 Development in the Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

14 Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

15 Countryside Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

16 St Laurence Village Design Statement

Planning history

SE/15/01749/FUL & SE/15/01750/LBCALT

(Item 4.2) 4

17 Demolition of existing agricultural buildings, erection of 15 dwellings with associated parking, landscaping and alterations to vehicular access – Refused.

SE/16/03814/LBCALT

18 Demolition of existing agricultural buildings, erection of 17 dwellings, including 7 affordable units, with change of use and conversion of existing Cart Shed and Boulton & Paul agricultural building to office accommodation with associated parking, landscaping scheme and alterations to existing vehicular access – Pending consideration.

Consultations

Seal Parish Council – 13.01.17

19 ‘Support – Yes – subject to conditions below:

Seal Planning Council supports this application subject to conditions being attached to the approval so as to ensure that the scheme to create seven affordable homes is agreed between the applicant and English Rural Housing Association. We note that in its letter of 20 May 2016 EHRA states that its participation in the scheme is conditional on a financial viability appraisal. Furthermore, the affordable housing should have conditions attached to it to ensure that the use of these houses is restricted in perpetuity to households which are either current residents of Seal Parish or have an existing family or employment connection.’

County Highways Engineer – 13.03.17

20 ‘Further to my previous comments dated 26th January 2017 on the above planning application I confirm that I now raise no objection on behalf of the local highway authority.

I note that the amended plans (21817A/05 Rev P) show that the secondary access has now been stopped up with bollards. This is acceptable as this reduces the hazard of conflict between vehicles exiting Church Road and those entering the development site.

The internal access route between units 1 and 9 has been widened to 3.7 metres, which would be wide enough for two cars to pass one another.’

Conservation Officer – 24.02.17 (Summary of comments provided for SE/16/03814/LBCALT)

21 Subject to the inclusion of a number of conditions on any approval of planning permission, the Council’s Conservation Officer has stated that they accept the principal of redevelopment of the site and the introduction of new dwellings into the farmstead.

(Item 4.2) 5

Housing Policy – 17.03.17 (Summary)

22 Provided comments supporting the application as it will provide affordable housing to help meet local needs identified within the recent Housing Needs Survey for Seal.

County Biodiversity Officer – 19.01.17 (Summary)

23 No objection has been raised subject to the inclusion of several conditions relating to external lighting, reptile mitigation, construction management plan, breeding bird and badger mitigation, and enhancements.

Lead Local Flood Authority – 26.01.17

24 ‘Kent County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority has reviewed the submitted information and note the changes to the design.

The principles proposed for the management of surface water have not changed from the previously submitted planning application (ref: 15/01749/FUL), as such those comments in our original response dated 20th August 2015 (copy attached) still apply.’

In their comments of the 20th August 2015 the Lead Local Flood Authority state that they have no objection to the scheme subject to the inclusion of three conditions to be attached to any approval of planning permission.

County Archaeological Officer – 31.03.17 (Summary)

25 No objection has been raised subject to the inclusion of a condition relating to site evaluation and investigation works.

Environmental Health Officer – 17.01.17

26 ‘Environmental Health concur with the recommendations detailed in the submitted contaminated desk study. Therefore further intrusive investigation of the site will be required prior to commencement of any development. Should any contamination be found, the applicant should submit remediation proposals to be agreed by the local planning authority, on completion of all remediation and soil importation a validation report will be required and agreed with the local planning authority before habitation of any property.’

Thames Water – 30.12.16 (Summary)

27 No objection raised.

Representations

28 Four letters of representation has been received objecting to the scheme on the following grounds:

• Impact on the Green Belt

• A lack of very special circumstances

• Density of the development in terms of numbers of units;

(Item 4.2) 6

• Increased traffic and highways safety;

• Lack of a demand for office accommodation;

• Over development of the site;

• Layout of the proposed terrace and impact on the character of the area;

• Access to the terrace of properties;

• How the properties would be powered;

• Impact on the AONB;

• Parking provision; and

• A lack of a bus service contrary to the applicant’s statement.

Chief Planning Officer’s appraisal

Principal issues

29 The main issues for consideration are:

• The potential impact on the Metropolitan Green Belt;

• The potential impact on the character and appearance of the area;

• The potential impact on heritage assets;

• The potential impact on residential amenity;

• The potential impact on highways safety and parking provision;

• The potential impact on biodiversity;

• The potential impact on the Area of Archaeological Potential;

• The potential impact on surface water drainage;

• The Code for Sustainable Homes;

• Affordable housing provision;

• Assessment of the case for very special circumstances;

• The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL); and

• Sustainable development.

Of particular relevance to this application is the following guidance:

Presumption in favour of sustainable development:

30 Para 14 of the NPPF confirms that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that development that accords with the development plan should be approved unless material considerations indicate otherwise. (See paras 11, 12, 13 of NPPF.)

31 Para 14 of the NPPF (and footnote 9) also advises that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, permission should be granted unless there are specific policies in the NPPF

(Item 4.2) 7

that indicate that development should be restricted. This applies to a variety of designations, including SSSIs, Green Belt, AONBs, designated heritage assets and locations at risk of flooding.

Green Belt considerations:

32 Having established that the site is within the Green Belt we must consider both our Development Plan Policy and the NPPF.

33 As set out in para 87 of the NPPF, where a proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it is by definition harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

34 Para 88 of the NPPF advises that local planning authorities should give substantial weight to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

35 Therefore, the harm in principle to the Green Belt remains even if there is no further harm to openness because of the development.

36 Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt and is different from visual impact. Openness is about freedom from built form. Even if there is absence of harm to openness, there can be harm in principle to the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB):

37 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 states that the Local Planning Authority should conserve and enhance Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Designating an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty protects its distinctive character and natural beauty and can include human settlement and development.

38 There are therefore two considerations directly related to a site’s AONB status when determining a planning application. Firstly does the application conserve the AONB and secondly, if it does conserve the AONB does it result in an enhancement. A failure to achieve both of these points will result in a conflict with the requirements of the Act.

Impact on listed buildings and their setting:

39 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a duty on a local planning authority, in considering development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting, or any features of architectural or historic interest it possesses.

40 The NPPF also states that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets (para.132).

41 Policy SP1 of the Core Strategy states that the District’s heritage assets and their settings, including listed buildings, will be protected and enhanced.

(Item 4.2) 8

42 Policy EN4 of the ADMP states that proposals that affect a Heritage Asset, or its setting, will be permitted where the development conserves or enhances the character, appearance and setting of the asset.

Impact on the Metropolitan Green Belt

Development plan policy summary:

43 The NPPF states that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this include the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development (para. 89).

44 However, the NPPF defines previously developed land as being land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes land that is or has been occupied by agricultural buildings.

45 Policies LO1 and LO8 of the Core Strategy state that priority will be given to protecting the rural character of the District and that development that supports the maintenance and diversification will be supported where it is compatible with policies for protecting the Green Belt.

Assessment against development plan policy and whether the proposal is appropriate or inappropriate development in the Green Belt:

46 The development comprises the redevelopment of an existing agricultural site. In this case the proposed development is not one of the specified forms of development considered to be an exception under paragraph 89 of the NPPF. Therefore the proposed development would be, by definition, inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

47 It would therefore fail to comply with the NPPF and policies LO1 and LO8 of the Core Strategy.

Impact on openness:

48 The applicant has carried out a footprint, floor area and volume study as well as providing modelling of the existing and proposed massing. Cross-sections comparing the heights of the existing and proposed buildings have also been submitted.

49 The footprint and volume study indicates a reduction in footprint of 29%, a reduction in floor area of 17.25% and a reduction in volume of 17%.

50 Whilst these figures show a reduction, it is clear that the cross-sectional plans indicate comparable heights between the existing and proposed situations and the massing models show a similar if not greater spread of development across the site.

(Item 4.2) 9

51 Overall, whilst there are benefits from the development there are negatives. On balance, I would therefore conclude that the proposed development would have a neutral impact on openness with the benefits and negatives cancelling each other out.

Very special circumstances:

52 There has been a claim made of very special circumstances.

53 This issue is considered in more detail in this report, as very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by any other considerations. It is therefore necessary to first identify the extent of harm.

Impact on the character and appearance of the area

54 Paragraph 115 of the NPPF states that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

55 Policy LO8 of the Core Strategy states that the distinctive character of the Kent Downs and High Weald Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and their settings, will be conserved and enhanced.

56 Policy EN5 of the ADMP states that proposals within the AONB will be permitted where the form, scale, materials and design would conserve and enhance the character of the landscape and have regard to the relevant Management Plan and associated guidance.

57 The NPPF states that the Government ‘attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.’ (para. 56)

58 Policy SP1 of the Core Strategy states that all new development should be designed to a high quality and should respond to the distinctive local character of the area in which it is situated.

59 Policy EN1 of the ADMP states that the form of proposed development should respond to the scale, height, materials and site coverage of the area. This policy also states that the layout of proposed development should respect the topography and character of the site and the surrounding area.

60 The development would result in the removal of most of the existing large agricultural buildings on the site and replacement with ones of a residential use and scale. The site is located within a hamlet in the countryside that mainly comprises residential dwellings. The levels of the site rise from the lane to the front and dense tree belts line the two side boundaries of the site with woodland to the rear. Public views of the site are therefore limited to those from the lanes immediately adjacent to the site.

61 Whilst residential dwellings would ordinarily sit comfortably within the prevailing residential character of the area, in this instance the

(Item 4.2) 10

development would lead to a suburbanisation of the existing farmyard. The existing farm buildings are buildings that are expected to be found in the countryside, whereas a residential development of this type and design is not.

62 Further to this the density of the development would be 20 dwellings per hectare. The development would be more than double the density of the surrounding area, which has a density of 8 dwellings per hectare and would appear at odds with the character of the local area.

63 For these reasons, it is therefore the case that the development would not reflect the rural character and appearance of the area. It follows that the scheme would be in conflict with the NPPF, policy SP1 of the Core Strategy and policy EN1 of the ADMP.

64 Due to the nature of the site and the limited scope of views into the site, I am satisfied that the development would conserve the landscape character of the AONB in accordance with the NPPF, policy LO8 of the Core Strategy and policy EN5 of the ADMP.

Impact on heritage assets

65 The Listed Buildings and Conservation Area Act 1990 states that proposals should protect the historic character and the setting of the listed building.

66 The proposal comprises the demolition of a number of existing buildings, including a curtilage listed buildings, the erection of new buildings within the setting of a listed building and retained curtilage listed buildings and the conversion of two curtilage listed building.

67 The demolition of the large Boulton & Paul barn, which is one of the curtilage listed farm buildings on the site, would require the applicant to demonstrate that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the four bullet points in paragraph 134 of the NPPF are met.

68 The erection of the new buildings and the conversion of the existing building would have less than substantial harm to the setting of the existing heritage assets and to the fabric and character of the converted building itself. It is therefore necessary to weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposal.

69 The applicant has provided a Heritage Statement, which identifies the significance of the various heritage assets. As required by the NPPF an Impact Statement and a survey of the condition of the large Boulton & Paul barn has also been submitted.

70 These documents combine to confirm that no viable use has been found for the large Boulton & Paul barn and its loss is mitigated by the public benefit gained in the retention of the smaller barn and its viable conversion to office use. While there would be clear benefits in retaining the barn, it dominates the site and in its current state impacts on the setting of the adjacent listed Oast house building.

(Item 4.2) 11

71 The retention of the smaller Boulton & Paul barn and its proposed non-residential use is welcomed as is the retention of much of the external materials of the building and the reuse of material salvaged from the larger barn to be removed.

72 In the wider context of the setting of the heritage assets, much of the informal character of the farmstead setting is proposed to be retained.

73 As such, whilst harm would occur as a result of the loss to the large Boulton & Paul barn this harm is justified and therefore the presumption against harm is outweighed.

74 As such, the development meets the tests of Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and complies with the NPPF, policy SP1 of the Core Strategy and policy EN4 of the ADMP.

Impact on residential amenities

75 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF identifies a set of core land-use planning principles that should underpin decision-taking. One of these principles is that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.

76 Policy EN2 of the ADMP states that proposals will be permitted where they would provide adequate residential amenities for existing and future occupiers of the development and would safeguard the amenities of existing and future occupants of nearby properties by ensuring that development does not result in excessive noise, vibration, odour, air pollution, activity or vehicle movements, overlooking or visual intrusion and where the built form would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy, or light enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby properties.

77 The properties potentially most affected by the development would be those that share a boundary to the site. All other dwellings, including those on the opposite side of the lanes, would be of sufficient distance away not to be significantly impacted upon.

78 1-4 Rosemary Cottages would retain a distance of some 30m to the new dwellings proposed to be erected closest to the western boundary of the site. This distance would ensure that the residential amenity of the occupiers of these properties was wholly preserved, including any potential noise disturbance from a wholly residential use of the site.

79 To the east, The Little House, would retain a distance of over 85m to the new development on the site. This distance would again ensure that the residential amenity of the occupiers of these properties was wholly preserved, including any potential noise disturbance from a wholly residential use of the site.

80 Within the site some of the relationships formed between the new properties and between the existing properties and new dwellings would be uncomfortable. This would particularly be the case in terms of the overlooking and loss of privacy to the gardens serving Units 3, 5 and 9, and between Unit 9 and Foxbury Farmhouse and Foxbury Farm Cottage.

(Item 4.2) 12

81 These relationships would not preserve residential amenity and cause harm to the enjoyment of occupiers of these new properties.

82 As such, I am of the view that the development would not provide adequate residential amenities for existing and future occupiers of the development. This fails to accord with the NPPF and policy EN2 of the ADMP.

Impact on highways safety and parking provision

83 Policy EN1 of the ADMP states that proposal should ensure satisfactory means of access for vehicles and pedestrians and provide adequate parking and refuse facilities.

84 Policy T2 of the ADMP states that vehicle parking provision, including cycle parking, in new non-residential developments should be made in accordance with advice by Kent County Council as Local Highway Authority or until such time as non-residential standards are adopted.

85 The development would provide 38 vehicle parking spaces, which exceeds the required parking provision by one space and includes some visitor parking, and the widening of the existing vehicular access to the site.

86 The County Highways Engineer has raised no objection to the scheme subject to a number of conditions. On this basis I am satisfied that the development complies with the requirements of policies EN1 and T2 of the ADMP.

Impact on biodiversity

87 The NPPF states that development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted (para. 118).

88 Policy SP11 of the Core Strategy states that the biodiversity of the District will be conserved and opportunities sought for enhancement to ensure no net loss of biodiversity.

89 The application has been fully supported by ecological surveys, which the County Biodiversity Officer has found to be acceptable subject to conditions.

90 It is therefore the case that the development would not harm biodiversity and so the proposal is in accordance with the NPPF or policy SP11 of the Core Strategy.

Impact on the Area of Archaeological Potential

91 The NPPF states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (para. 132).

92 Policy SP1 of the Core Strategy states that the District’s heritage assets and their settings, including listed buildings, will be protected and enhanced.

(Item 4.2) 13

93 Policy EN4 of the ADMP states that proposals that affect a Heritage Asset, or its setting, will be permitted where the development conserves or enhances the character, appearance and setting of the asset.

94 Within the Area of Archaeological Potential the proposed development would take place on areas of the site that are already developed. Further to this the County Archaeological Officer has raised no objection to the scheme subject to the inclusion of a condition relating to site evaluation and investigation works.

95 I would therefore conclude that the proposal would not harm any archaeological features that may be found under the site in accordance with the NPPF, policy SP1 of the Core Strategy and policy EN4 of the ADMP.

Impact on surface water drainage

96 The Local Lead Flood Authority has raised no objection to the scheme subject to conditions and so the surface drainage system proposed as part of the development is wholly acceptable.

The Code for Sustainable Homes

97 Policy SP2 of the Core Strategy requires that new homes achieve at least Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Applicants must submit evidence which demonstrates how the requirements have been met or which demonstrate that compliance is not technically or financially feasible.

98 However, two material considerations are a recent ministerial statement outlining the fact that local authorities will no longer be able to require energy efficiency standards on new dwellings and the fact that the Code for Sustainable Homes no longer exists making it unreasonable to impose related conditions. Therefore, while the proposal has been considered in relation to the development plan, material considerations dictate that in this instance any condition requiring compliance with the Code for Sustainable Homes should not be imposed.

Affordable housing provision

99 Policy SP3 of the Core Strategy states that in residential developments of 15 dwellings or more gross 40% of the total number of units should be affordable.

100 The proposal includes the provision of a total of 17 dwellings. It is therefore the case that 7 of the houses would need to be affordable units to comply with policy SP3.

101 The applicant has provided a draft legal agreement, which would secure 7 affordable units as part of the development. However, this has not been completed and therefore would form a ground of refusal.

(Item 4.2) 14

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

102 The proposal is CIL liable but no CIL exemption has been claimed.

Assessment of any very special circumstances that may apply for this Green Belt proposal

103 Para 88 of the NPPF states that when considering any planning application, LPAs should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by any other considerations.

Possible very special circumstances:

104 These can be summarised as:

• Improved openness;

• The reduction in built development, both footprint and volume and removal of 30% of the sites hardstanding areas;

• Improved views of the Listed building and associated improvements to its setting;

• Highway access improvements and changes in activity levels from the site;

• The provision of 7 affordable units of a size and type for which there is an identified need in this location; and

• The ability of existing residents of the village to downsize their property.

Assessment of very special circumstances:

105 As noted above, I believe that the change in openness between the existing and proposed development on the site is neutral. I would therefore attached limited weight to this material consideration.

106 The main views of the listed Oast house are from the lane to the front of the site. These would not be significantly altered as a result of the development. In addition, the setting of the listed building and the curtilage listed buildings would be improved by the removal of the large Boulton & Paul barn.

107 However, harm would result from the introduction of the new dwellings in the countryside. The harm to the heritage assets would therefore balance out as being neutral and I would attach limited weight to this material consideration.

108 Highway access improvements and changes in activity levels from the site would not result in significant improvements to highways safety along the lane and so I would again attach limited weight to this matter.

109 The provision of 7 affordable units is in line with the requirement of policy SP3. It is therefore the case that the applicant has done no more than would

(Item 4.2) 15

be required of them for a new residential development of this scale anywhere in the District.

110 It is also the case that the applicant has not demonstrated by way of a viability assessment that the 7 affordable units are deliverable.

111 Whilst I would acknowledge a proven need for a specific type of housing in Seal, demonstrated by the recently completed Seal Housing Needs Survey, and that this development would go some way to meet that need, the site is unsustainably located and as mentioned above the scheme would only provide the number of affordable homes required by our policy. I would therefore attach limited weight to this material consideration.

112 Finally, providing existing residents the ability to downsize, is not a significant material consideration and so I would attach limited weight to this.

113 The harm in this case has been identified as:

• The harm in principle from inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which must be given significant weight.

• The harm to the amenity of residents, which I would attach moderate weight to.

Conclusion on very special circumstances:

114 In reviewing the extent of harm and the potential material considerations that form the case for very special circumstances, it is concluded that the cumulative limited weight afforded to the material considerations presented would not clearly outweigh the cumulative significant weight afforded to the harm identified in this instance.

Sustainable development

115 The NPPF states that at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking (para. 14). For decision-taking this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies out of date, granting of permission unless:-

- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole;

- specific policies in this framework indicate development should be restricted; or

- material considerations indicate otherwise.

116 In my opinion, the proposed scheme fails to wholly accord with the development plan, and I have explained this in detail above. It follows that

(Item 4.2) 16

the development is inappropriate and there would be adverse impacts in granting planning permission for the development.

Other issues

Referral to the Secretary of State

117 By way of notifying Members of a procedural point if they are minded to grant planning permission for the application, it would be necessary to refer the application to the Secretary of State for their consideration since the development is in the Green Belt and would exceed 1000m2.

Conclusion

118 The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and there are insufficient material considerations that would outweigh the harm that the proposal represents. Consequently the proposal is not in accordance with the development plan and therefore the Officer’s recommendation is to refuse.

Background papers

Site and block plan.

Contact Officer(s): Mr M Holmes Extension: 7406

Richard Morris - Chief Planning Officer

Link to application details:

https://pa.sevenoaks.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OI30P8BKI2D00

Link to associated documents:

https://pa.sevenoaks.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OI30P8BKI2D00

(Item 4.2) 17

(Item 4.2) 18

Block Plan